Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 60 (GAU)

Kamal Ali v. State of Assam

2017-01-11

SUMAN SHYAM

body2017
JUDGMENT : SUMAN SHYAM, J. 1. Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.M. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, Assam appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioner’s father, Manzur Ali, was working as an Upper Division Assistant under the Executive Engineer, PWD, Mangaldoi Roads Division when he had proceeded on retirement with effect from 01.06.1997 on medical ground. As per the Office Memorandum dated 09.09.1983 issued by the Government of Assam formulating a policy for considering the cases of eligible family members of Government servants retiring on medical ground for compassionate appointment, the petitioner being the son of Manzur Ali, had filed an application dated 09.6.1997 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. However, the said application filed by the petitioner was not considered by the authorities as a result of which the writ petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing WP (C) No. 9112/2003 which was disposed of by this Court by the order dated 02.01.2004 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment strictly in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 09.09.1983 and take appropriate decision in the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In terms of the order dated 02.01.2004 passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered by the District Level Committee (DLC) and the same was also forwarded to the State Level Committee (SLC) for necessary consideration. However, it appears from the record that the case of the petitioner was rejected by the SLC in its meeting dated 31.10.2015 on the ground that the petitioner had survived for more than 17/18 years after the death of his father and hence, he was not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. Aggrieved by the said decision of the SLC, the petitioner has moved this Court for the second time by filing the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the delay in the matter is not on account of any laches or negligence on the part of the petitioner but solely on account of the fact that the respondents were sitting over the matter. 3. Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the delay in the matter is not on account of any laches or negligence on the part of the petitioner but solely on account of the fact that the respondents were sitting over the matter. It is not in dispute that the case of the petitioner is genuine and hence, the application filed by the petitioner ought to have been considered on merit rather than rejecting the same purely on some technical ground. In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr. Mannan has relied upon an order dated 25.11.2016 passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 7094/2016 [Dhananjoy Barman vs. The State of Assam & Others] as well as a reported judgment of this Court in the case of Dipak Das vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2006 (Supp) GLT 95. 4. From a perusal of the records I find that although the SLC had noted that since the petitioner has survived for 17/18 years after the death of his father, the same appears to be erroneous because the petitioner had sought appointment on compassionate ground due to retirement of his father on medical ground. That apart, from the minutes of the proceedings held by the SLC it is clear that the case of the petitioner was not considered on merit. In view of the direction passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation vide order dated 02.01.2004 passed in WP (C) No. 9112/2003 the SLC was under a legal obligation to consider the case of the petitioner on merit, strictly in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 09.09.1983. It is submitted at the bar that the Government has continued the scheme of compassionate appointment on account of retirement of employees on medical ground. If that be the case then the petitioner’s case ought to have been considered on merit since he is not responsible for the delay caused in the matter. 5. It is submitted at the bar that the Government has continued the scheme of compassionate appointment on account of retirement of employees on medical ground. If that be the case then the petitioner’s case ought to have been considered on merit since he is not responsible for the delay caused in the matter. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is hereby disposed of with a direction on the SLC to reconsider the case of the petitioner on merit and thereafter take a decision in the matter considering his entitlement as on the date of his application as well as the relevant Office Memorandum holding the field on the relevant date. while carrying out the aforesaid exercise, the SLC would also keep in mind the direction issued in the case of the reported decision in Achyut Ranjan Das vs. State of Assam & Others, reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674 wherein this Court had issued a direction to consider all pending applications for compassionate appointment as on that date of the judgment as a onetime measure. 6. The case of the petitioner will be placed before the next SLC meeting and the decision taken thereof will be intimated to him in writing. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.